A Firing Offense

The South Carolina Supreme Court has reprimanded an attorney

On October 22, 2021, officers from the City of Florence Police Department responded to a loud noise that echoed off buildings. After hearing a second loud noise, an officer in the area identified the noise as a gunshot. Officer 1 drove towards the location of the noise and found Respondent sitting on the front porch of his law office. Officer 1 asked Respondent whether he had any guns on his person, and Respondent stated he did not. Respondent smelled like alcohol and there was a spent shell casing on the ground near Respondent. A second officer arrived and observed additional spent casings on the porch of Respondent’s law office. Accordingly, Respondent was handcuffed. While being escorted to the police car, Respondent attempted to kick Officer 1.

When Officer 3 arrived on the scene, Respondent informed him there was a gun inside the law office and gave Officer 3 permission to retrieve it. The officers retrieved the gun and found it was loaded with three live rounds that matched the spent casings found on the front porch of Respondent’s law office. Respondent was arrested and charged with discharging a firearm within city limits. When the officers attempted to get information from Respondent, he refused to give his name and date of birth.

Once secured in the patrol car, bodycam footage shows Respondent was nonresponsive when called on by the officers. The officers opened the back doors to the police car to ensure Respondent’s well-being. Respondent was asked to sit up so he could breathe more easily, but Respondent refused.

Dashcam footage from Officer 2’s nearby patrol car captured the incident on video. That video shows Respondent walked outside his law office, sat on his front porch, and discharged the weapon. The muzzle flash can be seen coming from where Respondent is seated on his porch. Respondent self-reported his arrest to ODC on October 26, 2021, and has now completed a diversionary program, which will result in the dismissal of his criminal charge for discharging a weapon within the city limits. Respondent claims he carelessly handled his pistol and accidentally discharged the weapon. Respondent admits his conduct reflects poorly on the legal profession.

An unrelated complaint involved failure to properly perfect an appeal in a criminal matter.

Sanction

We find Respondent’s misconduct warrants a public reprimand. In re Stratos, 374 S.C. 212, 215, 648 S.E.2d 607, 608 (2007) (publicly reprimanding a lawyer for failing to adequately communicate with his client and failing to timely perfect an appeal on his client’s behalf); cf. In re Sorenson, 380 S.C. 119, 121, 669 S.E.2d 91, 92 (2008) (publicly reprimanding a lawyer who was arrested on misdemeanor criminal charges that were subsequently dismissed). Accordingly, we accept the Agreement and publicly reprimand Respondent for his misconduct. Within thirty days, Respondent shall pay the costs incurred in the investigation and prosecution of this matter by ODC and the Commission on Lawyer Conduct. As a condition of discipline, Respondent shall complete the Legal Ethics and Practice Program Ethics School within one year.

(Mike Frisch)